That we now know all of the shit Rich Rod had to deal with? That we know about people who claim to be Michigan men but act nothing like it? Certainly Rodriguez didn't come out looking perfect, but the people who really looked bad were those that had worked against him.

And as far as "things the public doesn't need to know," there's nothing wrong with transparency. If the people who need to be held accountable for their actions are the same people running the show, nothing would ever change if some of this stuff doesn't come to light.

Seriously. If anything, 3&O showed what happened when a bunch of people *did* think they were more important than the team. In my opinion, that's not the kind of behavior we should be trying to protect.

I'm not saying protect them. I'm saying that putting the programs dirty laundry out for everyone to see is not a positive thing. It is also something that can be handled internally and the AD and President have an obligation to do as much. Especially with something like a football program where if you want to be truely sucessful year in and year out you have to operate in the grey area in a number of instances. Allowing access to a journalist is just inviting punishment. Watch the news on any given day it's like 95% negativite and 5% positive. People love scandals.

I like to know the reasons for my team falling so spectacularly the past 3 years. I like to know why a coach who was so successful elsewhere, failed here. I like to know when people aren't given the best shots to succeed. I like to know when people who I look up too, aren't really the way they're made out to be. The only people who don't want the general public to know are those who look bad in the book.

Arguing with the statement "bottom line" is silly. Our appreciation of Michigan football on this blog is and should never be about bottom lines. Its about getting a greater understanding of the inner-workings of the program, all of the tiny cogs that make it tick. If you're here for bottom lines, you're probably wasting your time - you can simply say they won or they lost and move along. Three and Out is extremely useful to the discerning fan that wants to know more than the simple statement that Rodriguez would still be coaching if he won. Oh, and the sky is blue.

It seems it's far more a cudgel used to try and beat people into submission. "Have you read 3&O?" seems like a popular replacement for a good argument. The book certanly lets people see some inner working, and discern some things....but leaves a whole lot out. Some because people wanted to have nothing to do with it, but others because he just willfully leaves them out. If the point was to see what some of the cause and effect of the wins and losses were, it makes no sense whatsoever to completely gloss over the defense...which is reason #1 on why we have a new coach...and the rest start at 101 in importance after that. Bacon loved his innuendo and politics, but somehow with people he was locked in with for 3 years didn't hear anything about the interactions between Rich, his defensive staff, his first defensive coordinator, and then his second defensive coordinator....and how/why they were switching what defenses they were teaching, often by guys who had no idea how to teach it. That was kinda importance. Yet somehow Bacon knew what went on in meetings between Martin and Coleman, but had no idea what went on with the staff he was embedded with. That's either negligence, or outright spin.

Or its an editorial choice that the biggest story is about the internal politics of one of the big traditional college football powers and how insiders and outsiders conflicted therewithin. At some point, you've got to choose the core of your story, otherwise your book is a disorganized jumble / chronology that does not capture the audience.

Bacon and his editor, at some point, decided that the story of the internal politics that surrounded (and in Bacon's narrative, did in) Rodriguez was the story that had the widest possible appeal and they focused the book on that narrative. I'm sure he'd tell you there are multiple other narrative threads that he explored but discarded, either because he couldn't prove his conclusions or because they led away from the focus they chose to reach the broadest possible audience, ie, to reach beyond the audience of die-hard Michigan fans targeted in his previous books to the mass sportsreading public. And it seems to have succeeded, as Bacon's book has been mentioned on almost every platform that writes about college football.

There are definite downsides to that narrative choice.It substantially removes RichRod's agency, he comes across as an ineffectual, almost clueless figure helpless to counter all the forces swirling around him. Because the book focuses on the politics beyond the football staff, noone on the staff, save Rodriguez and maybe Barwis, emerges as a real character in the story. Without treating those coaches as essential characters to the story, Bacon can't really tell the story of the defensive struggles, because his narrative doesn't provide the context and characterization necessary to understand what happened.

I'm sure Bacon has his opinions on the defense, and likely some very intriguing stories about the conflict between the coaches, but you only get so many pages.

EDIT: the fact that the book is a work of narrative also means that your first point is right on. The book should not be used as a cudgel, a final word, or as absolute truth, but as a story that, like all stories, is partial and from a point of view. But because its not the entire story (nothing will ever be) doesn't mean we have to throw up our hands and declare the past unknowable.

For the reasons M-Wolverine points out, Bacon's analysis of Rodriguez's tenure is enormously frustrating for the reader and, at least for me, completely incredible.

Bacon wants to make the point that Rodriguez failed because the football program, the Athletic Department, and the University as a whole all failed to give him the uniequivocal support and the room for discretionary judgment that Bo and Lloyd enjoyed. The only fault that Bacon will attribute to Rodriguez is an inability to make good PR decisions.

Well, maybe. But if Bacon is going to succeed in making that point, then he has to explain why those institutional factors and clumsy PR made the defense suck. Instead of doing that, Bacon just skates over all of the most essential problems with the defense. It's as though Bacon did not want to address the problems with the defense at all, which only detracts from his credibility. Rodriguez made a lot of mistakes as coach -- and not only PR mistakes. But without any analysis of Rodriguez's obvious shortcomings, Bacon can't really prove what he wants to prove -- that Rodriguez would have succeeded if Lloyd Carr and the former players had behaved decently, if Michael Rosenberg did not have an ax to grind, and if Bill Martin were better at his job.

Bacon's approach has the additional defect of making Rodriguez look ineffectual, as you pointed out. Bacon portrays him as a pawn, robbing him of most (or all) of his agency. If I were Rodriguez, this is what would most irritate me about the book.

[EDIT -- You are also right to point out that Bacon only had so many pages to work with. But there's a lot of fat in the book. Did he really need to quote so many pre-game speeches at such length? Did he really need to include the functional equivalent of an AP game story for virtually every game? Did he really need that long first chapter on the history of college football? (Moreover, as someone who wrote a dissertation on the history of higher education in the US at the turn of the 20th century, I can tell you that Bacon's history is grossly distorted by an apparent desire to prove that all good things in college football began in Ann Arbor.) One can't blame page limits for Bacon's failure to address important issues in the book.]

Maybe Bacon's book "succeeded" in a commercial sense. But the sales figures alone don't prove that his chosen narrative was the right one. Many people bought this book because it dishes dirt, because it has behind-the-scenes information that is exciting to read. You can enjoy this book on a superficial level and put it down feeling like something big was missing. And readers who don't follow Michigan closely can accept Bacon's analysis because they probably don't know much about Michigan football between 2008-10, besides the team's won-loss record and the Free Press scandal. They don't know about Rodriguez comandeering the defensive strategy decisions, year after year. They don't know about Shafer and Robinson. They don't even have questions to ask about these things.

Deeply flawed books often sell. This is a deeply flawed book. And the flaws begin with the narrative that Bacon chose, which is not well supported by Bacon's own evidence and which just does not correspond some of the most important events of Rodriguez's time as coach.

The only fault that Bacon will attribute to Rodriguez is an inability to make good PR decisions.

That's you saying that. That point is not made in the book, and it is an assertion that Bacon has pointedly refused to make in any of his book tour interviews. Bacon willingly concedes the mistakes made by Rodriguez. Your assertion is false.

And readers who don't follow Michigan closely can accept Bacon's analysis because they probably don't know much about Michigan football between 2008-10, besides the team's won-loss record and the Free Press scandal. They don't know about Rodriguez comandeering the defensive strategy decisions, year after year. They don't know about Shafer and Robinson. They don't even have questions to ask about these things.

So what is YOUR knowledge base on those issues? Have you spoken with Greg Robinson, or Scott Shafer, or Rich Rodriguez, or Jeff Casteel? Do you have other information about those guys, apart from this blog? If you have a detailed theory on the Michigan defense being "comandeered," I might like to hear it and I hope you won't mind my asking about your sources.

First, I think that it's fair to say that Bacon's only substantial criticism of Rodriguez in the book itself is that he stunk at PR. Bacon pointed out other small flaws, but no others that would have materially affected Rodriguez's position. My position is, of course, a statement of opinion, not of objective fact. It's your prerogative to disagree with it (although I'd be interested to learn what you saw in the text that's inconsistent with my opinion). But it's not your prerogative to say that my opinion is "false."

Second, I don't have a "source" about Rodriguez comandeering the defense. I don't need one. The commonly accepted story of the Michigan defense is that Rich Rodriguez compelled his subordinates to run a scheme with which they were neither comfortable nor familiar. I am not aware of any evidence to contradict this, and there is much evidence consistent with it. For example, it cannot be disputed that Michigan began running a 3-3-5 at midseason, during the tenures of both Scott Shafer and Greg Robinson. It is also undisputed that neither of those coaches ever ran a 3-3-5 before. The head coach of the Michigan Wolverines did have experience with such a defense before coming here. There are numerous unrefuted reports (including by Bacon) that Rodriguez decided that Michigan needed to run a 3-3-5. It is reasonable to infer that neither Shafer or Robinson would have made this decision on their own. That inference is supported by the fact that, as Michigan ran it, the 3-3-5 was structurally flawed. Under Robinson, the linebackers were misaligned, among other things. (See numerous UFRs from 2010). If you have a better explanation of why Michigan's defense failed, or of why the 3-3-5 was used and used badly, let's hear it.

It implies a takeover by force, against opposition. Maybe that is the case. I just haven't seen anything from any of the principals that would support that kind of description.

As for Bacon explicitly declining to let Rodriguez escape blame, and in fact placing "equal" blame on three elements (unfair press, disloyal insiders, Rodriguez himself) you can listen here, at the end of the interview:

John Bacon can give a thousand interviews in which he assigns equal blame to Rodriguez, disloyal insiders, and the press. But those interviews don't determine the meaning of the text that he wrote.

When I look at the text itself, I don't get the sense that Bacon blames those three things equally. The structure of the book and the themes that Bacon reiterates throughout that structure emphasize public opinion and institutional dynamics as the two primary causes of Rodriguez's failure. To the extent that Bacon blames Rodriguez, he blames him for not being better at managing public opinion and, to a much lesser extent, for not being good at institutional politics. And, with respect to this last point, Bacon even seems to indirectly laud Rodriguez, implying that Rodriguez just wanted to coach football, not to play politics, and, who could blame him?.

Nothing in the book suggests that Rodriguez had any significant shortcomings as a football coach, not with strategy, not with managing his staff, not with dealing with his players, not with anything that took place on the field, in the weight rooms, or in the meeting rooms. And that's my main problem with the book. I don't believe that Rodriguez was 6-18 in conference because of Mary Sue Coleman, Lloyd Carr, Bill Martin, and Michael Rosenberg.

I can see that maybe he didn't think there'd be a demand, or he had no interest in breaking down coaching X's and O's, or consulting on what's bad coaching or what's not. But since his take on the book was the politics of the situations (for whatever reason), how he could make that his book's primary theme yet completely ignore the politics going on in the coaching staff doesn't connect with me. He has no problem repeating what Rich told him happened in private meeting. What others told him happened in meeting he wasn't anywhere around. And what could only be considered scuttlebutt of what happened in a private meeting between Martin and Coleman.....but he heard NOTHING going on in a staff he was embedded in for 3 years? Never heard of problems between the carryovers from West Virginia and not one, but 2 DC's? I didn't have to be there, and could see Shafer had some sarcastically hard feelings over being scapgoated. And we don't need to have an analysis of the 3-3-5 to get into why multiple coaches who have never coached it are being forced to impliment it (and sometimes in MID-season). He was there. He DID have first hand access to all of them. If he didn't have space for those "characters", it sounds like some really bad editorial decisions.

He may have decided to frame his book as Rich vs. the Athletic Department (the media, the fans, and whoever else). And that's a legitimate take. But it completely undermines his claim that he was just a fly on the wall, reporting events, and it's an unbias look at things. Because that's a hell of a slant.

It's funny, a lot of people here are saying the book benefited Rich in his hiring at AZ. But when the book came out, it was "valid" because according to Bacon "Rich's lawyers let him know he didn't like the book". So I'm not sure how it's helpful, but so hurtful at the same time. Frankly, while I'm sure there's always some lawyer-type contact in these situations, I can't imagine Bacon really thought Rich hated the book. It's practically a love letter to the guy. But it sounds good to say that when you're trying to claim objectivity after apparently chosing a narrative that paints one guy against the world, with nary a fault mentioned. Because I'm guessing, just like the rest, no one comes out looking really good in that defensive staff interactions.

Bacon gave us a lot of the what. And the who. But 90+% of it we already knew (though the general public might have been in the dark....still are, because it's not like it's read by anyone buy diehards). But he almost completely misses on the why. Why did so and so do that, undermine this way, stupidly said this. We go from Lloyd supposedly recommending Rich to supposedly undermining him. What happened inbetween? A void in the book. I'd say it's just unknown, but the book doesn't stray from insinuating a lot of unknowns. Did maybe Rich do a few more things that didn't endear himself to others? Possibly. We heard those rumors too. But some rumors are greater than others in Bacon's book. Which makes it all a bit suspect.

that really bothered me about Bacon's "sourcing." At various points, he takes great pains to point out that he had multiple sources to verify certain factual statements that were not within his personal knowledge. But he cheerfully reports on the substance of meetings that included only Rodriguez (sometimes with Rita), Martin, and Coleman. He even attributes direct quotations to persons in the meeting. Did he have multiple sources for these things? I cannot believe he did. It's impossible to think that Martin and/or Coleman would have confirmed the story about agreeing to pay part of Rodriguez's buy-out without approval by the regents. So Rodriguez must be Bacon's only source for this. Are we really supposed to believe that Rodriguez and/or Rita had a perfectly objective, perfectly accurate recollection of precisely what was said -- accurate enough for Bacon to attribute quotations to the participants?

This reflects a more general problem with Bacon's adherence to the standards governing his writing. Sometimes he insists on multiple sourcing; sometimes he's wiling to rely on a single source. Sometimes he tries to look behind the scenes to identify the reasons for events; sometimes he takes stuff at face value. And, most of the time, when he deviates from his purported standards, he does it in a way that's flattering or beneficial to Rich Rodriguez.

...from Rich's take." But the one that stuck out to me was the meeting where "MSC chewed out Bill Martin." A 2 person meeting. That I'm sure there was some gossip about. But there were two people in the meeting, and I don't think Mary Sue was tellling him about how she handles employees (or anything else), and I don't think Bill Martin was volunteering that "boy, did I get my ass reamed that day." So, who's his source? It's gossip. Which quite possibly could be true. But I'm not sure how he won't throw a single Les Miles rumor out there, that probably has a lot more behind it, or rumors about defensive coaching issues, which are there to see, but stuff like that is ok. It's ok because it frames his story the way he likes. (And yes, even if there was some truth to Coleman and Martin agreeing to pay without consulting the regents...the way it was worded in how they said it "oh boy, we're fired if we get caught" makes them sound like 8 year olds, and really doesn't instill me with confidence that it's an accurate recording of how and what they said.)

All-access coverage might be great for the author and fans, but ultimately bad for the school. I think Martin was out of his mind for allowing Bacon to have no-holds-barred access to the program, though we as fans benefitted.

Can you imagine if Rosenberg had had such access? Bacon glosses over numerous things in the book (e.g. what he saw when partying with the football players) that a classy reporter would overlook, but I dread what a mucraker or Deadspin-type would do with that sort of access.

Better to not allow that sort of access without, at the very least, right of refusal to allow anything the Administration deems inaccurate to go to the presses.

a more appropriate nom de plume for you would be Stalingrad, then? There are things to be kept on the inside, but insidious behavior is not one of them. That is what 3 and Out revealed. As a result, we are better, even if still imperfectly, able to judge people on their true character rather than merely a carefully cultivated public persona.

I think the importance of 3&O is really being overblown here. I doubt any of the Arizona people read it, or if they did that it had any impact on their decision ("gee, this Rodriguez sure is an emotional wreck, but this Bacon fellow seems to like him, so let's do it").

They hired Rodriguez because he's a big-name coach who'd actually be willing to coach at such a school. He'll attract attention to a university that's never even been to a Rose Bowl.

Virtually every Rodriguez-related article since 3 and Out has referenced the book or said "Rodriguez failed at Michigan because of a meddling former coach and an inability to coach defense" or "Michigan needed one of its own like Hoke; RR was never a good fit."

You can ask Mike Leach how much media narrative of a coach affects his hiring chances.

I am so sick of all the RR apologist whining. Contol what you can control and don't worry about all the rest. He was the head coach, not the offensive coordinator. Had he taken care of the defense, his record would have been better and he could have dealt with all the external problems better

Well, you can make that argument if you want. Even before the Bacon book, I tried to imgaine how, even if there was a Lloyd shadow conspiracy, it would really affect results on the field - and potential negative recruiting seemed to be the best hypothesis. But if you argue that, it's harder to use 'I guess Rodriguez's recruiting was pretty good after all - look at what Hoke did with his players this year.'

Results are the bottom line - W's and L's, and by that yardstick, the results were poor, some of the worst in program history. Two thirds of the game, D and special teams were terrible. Ultimately, that falls on the head of the man in charge.

I think he will do pretty well in Arizona. There's less media pressure, it seems, and with the right staff around him, I think he'll be able to help produce watchable football in the Pac-12 South that doesn't involve the Trojans.

Doesn't everybody? I mean it's not like the PAC-12 is a great football conference anyways. Like could you imagine if say a 6-6 team had an opportunity to go to the Rose Bowl. That would be ridiculous. I'm glad the PAC-12 is such a strong conference we never have to worry about that happening

Well I guess we can say goodbye to having Barwis around the area, according to the article some strength coach asked RR about Barwis coming over and RR said "He's indicated he's probably going to do that"

It's also weird to read that he the AD and admins coached him on some of the stuff he should say to win over Arizona people. Glad to see he's learned from his mistakes

Before the Stadium renovations got under way, there was a donors-only meeting that I was invited to in the Junge Center. Bill Martin was there, with his staff plus the architects and the planners. Bruce Madej and the Athletic Department PR people were there too.

At that time, there was a lot of complaining about the "luxury boxes." New York Times editorials, snarky reporting by Rosenberg, the Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor up in arms.

And even some donors unhappy. For my part, I was anti-renovation because I saw all of us mostly-ordinary Victors Club members getting shoved down in priority by an uber-class of suiteholders. And I thought the new structures would be dark and spoil the light in the Stadium.

Martin took the podium, and proceeded to conduct the greatest Powerpoint presentation I have ever seen. In one meeting, I was completely turned around and convinced. It was a tour de force. I asked Martin some questions that he thought were pretty good; and he told me to leave my business card with Bruce Madej. I did, but thought that I'd just get put on another list of fundraising solicitations. The next morning a little after 9, I got a phone call from Bill Martin who personally followed up on everything I had asked him about and we talked for another 20 minutes.

I have to acknowledge, that there were some monumentally awful p.r. decisions made with Rich Rodriguez. But they are just all the more strange to me, because I saw first hand how great a presenter Bill Martin can be, at least with regard to real estate development.

he was hired to clean up the budget and make Michigan athletics financially better off. He did exactly what he was supposed to do financially wise. He put the athletic department in the black and was able to renovate Crisler Arena(as well as get the practice facility plan going), renovate Big House, build new baseball and softball stadium and to name a few. That is his biggest accomplishment.

HIs biggest downfall is his ability to take hold politicially wise and did not do a good of PR. Ultimately, that's what caused him to get fired though him being pushy against the usher accelerated his timeline as a AD.

I thought that Lloyd Carr wanted to retire but was persuaded by Martin to coach for one more year because of the basketball coaching search. That's rumor that I've heard about Carr wanting to retire a year earlier but wasn't allowed by Martin.

Per 3&O, that's also something Don Canham did for Bo. Bo came in and wanted to get rid of the winged helmets. Bo was a fiery coach and would curse at his players and get in their faces, the complete opposite of his predecessor, Bump Elliott. Players didn't like that, but Bump wouldn't hear it and Canham supported Bo 100%. The difference between the way Bo's and RR's hirings were handled, from an administrative POV, is so stark that it's amazing.

I am a very busy man and I just tonight got to the NCAA violations part of 3 & O. It is so outrageous it honestly makes me feel ill. Over the past few weeks I have silently looked down on all the threads and comments about Rodriguez and didn't understand the vigor in which people still displayed as they continually voiced support.

I really get it now. Obviously it doesn't make me feel better about the losses, but the man never had a chance. Here's hoping for a 2014 Michigan- Zona NC game. Go Blue.

what you mean. But I read the book. When it came out. During Michigan State time period. Now, after we've rebuilt, it'd be kind of a downer. Do you need some pictures to go with the words to understand?

that they did NOT consider him a minority coach because he didn't join their little club for minority coaches even though it technically is of hispanic descent... or something like that. Rather vague memory, this one.

It's less about building strength, though he seems to be good at that, and more about his immense devotion and care he shows the kids. This gets a lot of people on his bandwagon, and his results don't disappoint.

I think it might be possible Barwis seemed like such a shock change from Gittleson. When you read the 3&O bit about Brandon Graham it seems like the difference is pretty clear in the training styles. However, looking at that team it seems like some of the players maybe could have benefited from some of Gittleson's more traditional training for bulk, particularly the O-line...the spread does need quick linemen, but to battle in the Big Ten those guys need bulk.

It's less about building strength, though he seems to be good at that, and more about his immense devotion and care he shows the kids

I attended a couple of Football Busts in the Carr era, and no staff member was thanked more by the players than Gittleson. They clearly had a strong personal bond with him. This is probably the case for most S&C coaches. They don't get where they are without being very good at inspiring athletes to work hard.

I was really concerned. But it wasn't so bad. Andy Staples naturally didn't dish the dirt on his SI colleague Michael Rosenberg and the Free Press as they deserved, and barely mentioned Three and Out. But this wasn't anywhere near as bad as what I'd have feared, coming from SI.

Blazefire, you should know. You are a regular. There is no point to mentioning the rumor that FIVE HOOKERS WERE KILLED AT SMU without mentioning the fact that the whole rumor was CRAIG JAMES KILLED FIVE HOOKERS WHILE HE WAS AT SMU.

I think it has something to do with Craig James and the fact that he ranked michigan below some god awful teams out of pure spite?

He is a good man, a good coach and a caring leader. His openness was his down fall. It is just too bad that no one here gave him pointers on what to say, the traditions, and those things we hold sacred.

Good man - sure, I will give you that, since I have no reason to doubt it.

Good coach - not at Michigan, he wasn't. Actually he was the worst hc we ever had, if record counts for anything. At prior stops, he had success, but those prior stops were on a smaller stage.

What ultimately did him in was his openness??? No, what did him in was going 3-9 his first year, failing to make a bowl during his first two years, winning a total of 6 big 10 games in 3 years, getting manhandled by OSU for three straight years, losing solidly to MSU for three straight years, fielding a defense that got worse every year, making terrible decisions in staffing, failing to recruit defense during his early years, getting hit with the first NCAA violations in team history, alienating a large section of the former players, failing to recruit well in state, failing to keep a large percentage of the talent including players that he recruited, getting humiliated in the gator bowl, saying that even Vince Lombardi couldn't win with his defense, saying that he hoped to find a kicker on the way to the 2010 wisco game and ultimately singing Josh freeking Grobin.

What did him in was his teams shitty tackling, poor execution, turnover and overall bad fundamentals. His teams looked lost on defensive coverages and the special teams were a disaster. I'm not sure how many times I said wtf when a kid, muffed a punt, blew a coverage, gave up third and longs, missed a kick, had a false start at critical times, looked un prepared after a bye week or worse yet after a month of practice before a bowl game. The media, and some of the good ole boy michigan club may not of gave rr a fair shot at being liked by all but they are not the reason that the team he had was poorly coached. He deserved to get fired at Michgan. Im tired of hearing he didn't get a fair shot or excuses for him. Dude got paid big money to run the program. He should of grew a pair and sang rage against the machines bulls on parade instead of Josh Groban. That would of got everyone attention.

Rosenberg is too busy working on his next Harbaugh profile, to cover the Rodriguez beat for SI.

Seriously, I'd like to know how Andy Staples arranged this. Kudos to him, professionally, for doing it. If I were Rodriguez, I think I'd be too tempted to go all Mafia on any organization that employed Rosenberg in any way.

I'm not sure how Michigan fans can read some of the recent comments from Martin, Molk and VanBergen or recent comments from Pipkins about what guys were saying about the new staff and still be talking about Rodriguez.

Michigan did not beat Ohio this year because of a countdown clock or because the players said "Beat Ohio" at the end of each meeting. We won because we had a better team. We were 10-2. In every comparative match-up, Michigan performed better than Ohio.

I'm curious: If Braxton Miller had completed that pass to Posey and we lost the game...what would the players have said? I'm glad I didn't have to find out, but some of this stuff is beyond me.

Or this: Why didn't our extra emphasis on MSU this year result in a win?

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I don't think that is why we won. I think we won because we were a more complete team. I don't think saying "Beat Ohio" and having a countdown clock would have won us the game last year.

in the rivalry, there is ample evidence that placing emphasis on the game helps. Bo did so in 1969, and no one would argue that UM was a more complete team that year. Cooper undersold the rivalry, yet how many times did an underdog Michigan team win those games. And when Tressel took over, the most famous action he took was making that statement about Michigan during the halftime of the basketball game. That year, 2001, a terrible OSU team beat a favored Michigan team in Ann Arbor.

You quickly dismiss emphasizing the game as something that can have a strong effect. I think history says otherwise

First, I didn't quickly dismiss it. I think its necessary to stress it because it's an important aspect of Michigan - and really all - of college football.

Second, look at the examples you just gave me: Bo in 69. Michigan's 8-4 teams in the 90s. Tressel in 2001. The underdogs prevailing over the favorites. By your logic, stressing the rivalry makes a team that may be overmatched superior on the day. Yet we, as the favorite, barely scraped by last weekend. We were 9-2, they were 6-5. Why, if we had the addition of countdown clocks and a new mantra, didn't we beat Ohio by 20+? Like I said, one pass differently and our chances of winning that game are dramatically decreased. Then what? Was the game stressed too much? Did even Brady Hoke not stress it enough?

I think for an underdog, putting a huge amount of emphasis on one game can make a big difference. It can give a lesser team a goal to put everything they have into. But even in 95-96, were our 8-4 teams really overmatched or did we just underachieve throughout the year, only to make up for it in the final game?

Stressing The Game is important, and for underdogs of the past it may have even been crucial to victory, but it is not why this year's team won.

So now you're not arguing that it can be helpful, but should in fact make the team win by 20 plus points. Sorry man, but that's ridiculous.

Further, he stressed the game at the beginning of the year, not just the past week. Were we considered massive favorites before the season began? C'mon, you're really stretching it here.

Those 8-4 teams that beat Cooper didn't always blow them out either.

Bottom line, players felt putting emphasis on the game helped. History shows that putting emphasis on the game helps. No one said it guarantees wins or leades to 20 point blowouts. So yeah, Hoke stressing the game is better than RR not emphasizing the game.

Now you just aren't even trying to read what I'm saying and just spouting off the same things over and over again. You're even making stuff up. I'm not stretching anything, I'm being logical while you disregard the actual points I'm making and pretend to argue something that isn't there.

I never said anything about garaunteeing 20 point victories. I never said the 8-4 teams blew out Cooper's teams. What I said was: If you are going to say that our 90s teams and Bos 69 team emphasized the game and beat superior opposition in tightly fought contests, then wouldn't it make sense for a far superior Michigan team at 10-2 to handily beat a deflated 6-6 OSU team since our coach - as Michigan Man as it can get - is now stressing the rivalry so much more than his predecessor? If anything, our defense came out and played their second worse game of the season against a true freshman quarterback. Shouldn't Greg Mattison - former Michigan coach with a deep understanding of the rivalry - have eaten him alive?

The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc.

Michigan's teams the last three years were fatally flawed (it's a bit different starting Nick Sheridan vs. Braxton Miller you know?). This year, we have far more complete team. We won because of that.

Once again: What would your response have been if Braxton Miller completes that TD pass and we lose the game? That we, a 10-2 team, kept it close with a 6-6 team at home and that proves that Hoke "gets it" because they were closer than the losses from the last three years?

Borges not calling 60% pass plays and running 77% out of the shotgun had a lot more to do with this win than the extra emphasis on it.

but you're not being logical. You're being evasive and constantly changing your argument to save face.

In your first post, you said this "We won because we had a better team." That does disregard placing emphasis on the game. Not a lot of wiggle room there, though you do riggle out of it in a later post.

You subsequently morphed your argument later to say that placing emphasis does have some effect, just not in this type of game.

"The whole emphasis on The Game only comes into play on the actual field in two scenarios: A talented underachieving team needs a goal since their season is shot (Michigan in 95' and 96') or when the two teams are highly ranked and playing for Rose Bowl bids, BT titles, etc."

This makes even less sense. You emphasize the game from the beginning of training camp. We have no idea what the team would look like at the end of the season. Few people would have assumed that OSU would end up 6-6 and Um at 10-2.

it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog? Either it affects your performance, or it doesn't. It wouldn't only matter if you're an underdog.

And your last sentence is even sillier. Why would it matter if only both teams are playing for Rose Bowl bids? Wasn't Michigan playing for a possible BCS birth? So playing up the rivaly would have only helped Michigan if OSU also came into the game ranked? How does that even make sense at all.

You seem to be going out of your way to evade giving Hoke's strategy credit, yet still allowing credit for others who employed the exact same strategy.

It's funny that you are calling me "evasive" when I am directly answering your quesitons while you evade mine.

Anyway:

No, I am not discrediting Hoke: His strategy is exactly what members of the fanbase like yourself need, some sort of fantasy about extra emphasis being the difference between winning and losing. Hoke is a PR master. He knows his audience. He's an absolute genius, the exact opposite of Rodriguez in these situations.

But once again:

If stressing a rivalry matters, why did we lose to MSU? That was supposedly stressed more than last year, yet we had the same results. I think we lost because our offense passed the ball 60% of the time. I don't think we lost because Hoke didn't add "Beat Sparty" before every pre-practice talk.

If stressing a rivalry really matters, why did Mattison's defense play one of their worst games against a very weak Ohio offense? Even if you say that OSU gives equal importance to the rivalry, their 118th ranked pass offense should not torch our Top 25 defense because stressing victory in that game all season should have seen us shut them down with ease. Or maybe it's becasue Bollman and Fickell actually had a gameplan that got the better of Mattison? It makes no sense: Mattison participated in the game for years, yet he was bested by a freshman QB?

Finally, I didn't change my argument. I said that saying "Beat Ohio" and having a countdown clock did not win us this game, having a better team did. Having Borges figure out the offense by Illinois did. Saying it in a press conference did not. Its kind of like garaunteeing a win: If you win, people think you're a genius, the coolest guy alive. If you garauntee and lose, it is a minor footnote (John Elway garaunteed the Broncos would beat the 49ers in a Super Bowl...they lost 55-10). It was the same thing this year with Hoke. He put extra emphasis on two games: MSU and OSU. We lost one and won one. To the logical rational person, this would indicate countdown clocks and such matter very little. We would assert that it was actually the differences in the offensive strategy that caused the different outcomes in those games. You can go on believing fairy tales.

However, on the flip side, when you've blown other games - maybe from stressing too hard about a certain team, thus ruining your chances at big ten titles? - the mantra of "Beat Ohio" can have a galvanizing effect translating to one victory saves a season. If you cannot understand this, then I don't know what to tell you. I think you do, but you are avoiding it. That's what Fickell and co. told themselves. Would it have mattered at all if they had come out and played the same crappy offense they played the week before against Penn State? No.

Once again: Michigan won this game because they were a superior team. They should have won by more if not for some sublime play by Braxton Miller and some surprise creativity by the OSU coaches. Saying "Beat Ohio" had no effect on the outcome of this game.

Once again: What would you say if Michigan had lost this game on a last second touchdown by a freshman quarterback who was leading the nation's 118th passing offense?

"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"

That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.

It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.

What exactly did we do in the final game that was so different from anything we'd done all season, except give up several big plays in the same game?

Once again: the only tangible benefit of stressing a rivalry is gearing up for an epic showdown (2006) or saving your season (1995). I'm talking about on the field performance. It doesn't hurt to stress the rivalry, but it doesn't make a huge difference either. You are either going to have a talented team with a good gameplan that executes better than the other team or you aren't. as simple as that.

And as I said above: most of the benefit comes from the perception people like you have of the coach. Hoke knows. He knows people are out there marvelling at "how much he gets it" and how his team "plays Michigan football" when they just squeaked by a 6-6 Ohio team. He's a genius.

Well, Bo went 0-7 in bowls during the 1970s and 5-5 during the 1980s. Meanwhile, from 1969-79 he went 5-5-1 against OSU while from 1980-89 he went 6-4. So while his bowl performance improved dramatically, he also got slightly better vs. OSU. I don't think one was directly related to the other.

I know why you sigh so much. It's because it must be exhausting to be so much more insightful than everyone else.

You're right, what was so different from anything we'd done all season? I mean, so what that we ran Denard 27 times? and so what that it was by far our most efficient offensive performance of the season. I'm sure that came from dumb luck, not extra gameplanning. And so what that on the HBO special both sides claimed that they gameplanned all season for that one game. I'm sure Hoke and Borges didn't do that at all. It was just sweet fortunate that this was their offense's best performance.

The only thing we did differently was let up long pass plays (no one calls you a "glass half full" guy, do they?)

It's a good thing Hoke can't fool you. We're just dumb sheep, impressed by his language and silly wins. But not you. You see right through the rhetoric.

So what he was named Coach of the year? And that it was the third time in four years (3 different conferences) that he won COY. You, Coastal Blue, can see right through it and you are not impressed. The press, everywhere, are just gullible idiots.

And so what that the players claimed his emphasis on the game helped. And that there is historical precendent. Or that you even admit that focusing on the game can help. In this case, in this instance, it's all just Hoke pulling the wool over all our eyes. He deserves no credit for this. Luckily, we have you to help us see it for the baloney that it is.

I'll end this with a Go Blue, and maybe a little Bear Down for you as well.

"it does not guarantee wins or automatically improve performance. But how could you not believe game planning and thinking about one opponent all year long will only affect your performance if you're an underdog?"

That answers your questions. Focusing on a game does not guarantee a win, but if you have two exact same teams (A & B), but team A spends extra time on the OSU game and team B does not, I would argue that Team A would have a better chance to win the OSU game. You argue that their chances do not improve, and they have the same chance to win as Team B (unless they are an underdog or both teams are fighting for the BCS or whatever odd twist oyu keep coming up with). This is not logical. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever.

So every scenario you keep coming up with (Why didn't we beat MSU, etc) is answered. Emphasizing a game doesn't guarantee a win, but it is obviously better to constantly prepare for a game than not. That has been born out historically, and again this year.

It seems relatively clear that emphasizing and putting extra attention on the game has benefits. You've admitted as much. Why you insist that only doesn't matter in this instance, I have no idea.

I think there's another issue at play. The football season is a grind. Practing for four hours a day, five days a week, is hard. When the coaches stress that the most important game of the season is at the end, that can help players keep focused as the year goes on. And when you're working so hard to show your best in the season finale, your team will probably show a lot of improvement as the year goes on. That certainly was true this year.

That particular point (beating Ohio) can be argued but many others can't, like Martin saying that they learned a different mentality. He said Hoke taught them how to compete and what Michigan football is (he said he had no idea what Hoke meant when he first said that but learned).

To me, it seems like the biggest difference between last year and this year was...the winning.

Look, its not a popular opinion. We want our new coaches to be miracle workers (I think they did do quite a bit to improve the D). But reality is, this team was set up a lot better from a personnel standpoint than the three prior to it. It had a more favorable schedule. Every team we played in the Big Ten was worse than the one from last year except MSU and adding Nebraska instead of say, Indiana (Though we also had Wisconsin and Penn State last year as opposed to Northwestern and Minnesota this year).

My point is, what if two things go differently. Let the rest of the season fall as it is. What if Notre Dame doesn't leave Gallon wide open and we lose that team like teams would 19 out of 20 times in that situation and what if Miller's pass to Posey is a yard shorter? Playing "Michigan football" had nothing to do with Notre Dame blowing their coverage or Braxton Miller missing that pass. At 8-4, was "Michigan footbal"l still played this year?

I'm just curious as to what you guys think the phrase means and how it affects the outcome of a game.

would be yes, we played Michigan football. But I think you'd also see people blaming losses to our three main rivals and Iowa on a "lack of high star rating talent" recruited by RR. Or how the players recruited by RR are undersized or not the right type of player for the rough, tough B1G.

Read what Pipkins has heard from the players this year about Hoke & Co. Coaching made a BIG difference this year, especially at the end of the season. This staff excels at teaching football and that is exactly what Pipkins was told by his future teammates last weekend.

This sort of talk is vastly overblown. "Learning what Michigan football is" and other intangible, largely motivational talk didn't help much against MSU, did it? ND nearly had us beat and tsio could have beaten us if Miller could complete a deep ball.

I'm more interested in player's comments about proper technique, film study, and better schemes on defense... in which case there obviously has been a massive improvement.

"That’s what (the players) were telling me on my visit. ‘We actually learned how to play football.’ "

I would argue that there are certain things Michigan fans expect from their team.

beating their arch-rivals is one, but playing fundamentally sound football. Playing good defense, getting a lot of hats to the ball, not getting blown out. These too are things formerly associated with Michigan football, and these materialized this year. There were plenty of UM football teams under Carr and Mo that lost to rivals, but still played Michigan football. So even if they lost to ND and OSU, they would have still been learning Michigan football if they did all the other things.

However, if they got blown out of those games by 20 points or more, then no, then no one would be saying they were learning what Michigan football is.

We've had a definitive style of play for close to 40 years, and that changed the last three years. This team played a lot more like the teams of the previous 40 years, being lead for the most part by their defense and a strong runnning game. Doesn't that sound like Michigan football? Why the need to downplay it?

I'm tired of the OSU chorus that If Only Miller Hadn't Overthrown That Pass The Bucks Woulda Won.

Bullshit. We would've had just under two minutes left, with all of our timeouts, and all we had to do was get into field goal range. The way our offense had eviscerated their defense all day long, I still think we get out of there with a win.

It did not. If you rewatch the game, the pass to Miller was on 3 and 6 with 1:48 to play. Miller scrambled for the 4th down conversion. The following series featured a sack on 1st down, and short pass completion on second, and spike on third and Avery's interception.

One of the reasons there were more blown coverages than usual last week against double moves is that they had time for double moves because we weren't getting to Miller. One of the reasons we weren't getting to Miller is that it was more important to contain him (we've seen this in reverse all year with Denard).

If Miller were a better downfield passer this tradeoff might have been seen differently. Mattison's usual MO in the two-minute drill has been a lot of pressure--he didn't come as hard as usual this week and I can see why.

Does what the seniors said about the lack of support from the Michigan Men during the Rodriguez years as well as the meeting on how they didn't quit on the coach like happened in the last coach change also matters? Because that's the type of thing that people are talking about when they talk about RichRod. Yes, he failed miserably at winning at Michigan, but the lack of support for him and how that impacted the players, OUR students, was just disgraceful.

We're not talking about RichRod because of RichRod. We're talking about him because it is an evidence of how disfunctional the Michigan family became because we hired a coach. We're talking about how internal fights generated pre-game speeches about cockroaches. We're talking about Braylon on SNF saying "Carr's University of Michigan" because he feels he's the owner of the #1 jersey. We're talking about something we never thought possible at post-Bo Michigan: that something, someone can be more important than the team.

Yesterday I heard Toomer on ESPN radio criticizing RichRod (still, after this weekend's victory) rehashing the tired old meme that the spread offense doesn't work on the B1G, while saying why he thinks Meyer will fail. When it's a consensus that last year's offense was actually good but the defense was the worst thing in the universe. We want to set the record straight, because we're Michigan and here we care about right and wrong more than we care about losing or winning. That's why people still talk about Rodriguez.

Rodriguez always referred to criticis of the program and those who criticized him and the kids as cockroaches. He would make an analogy that winning games would be like sunlight: the cockroaches would go back into hiding. But after losses, in the darkness, the roaches would come back out.

The metaphor was basically that program critics are skulking cowards. This metaphor made a lot of appearances in his speeches, especially in 2008/2009.

My loyalty is to Michigan. Do I think that the media treated him well? No. But we are not the media. He came, he lost, he was first.

As to the former players, perhaps all of these guys - and there were so many that you do have to wonder what they all saw and were bothered by - had a legitimate beef with RR or were not happy about the direction he was taking the program. To me, Molk's recent comment that Hoke and company emphasize the Ohio rivalry 1000 times more than RR proves all of these former players and others who didn't want rr here right.

WE don't know everything that went down that may have led the players - again, many, not just a few isolated individuals - to feel the way that they did.

But, putting that aside, there is a meme around here that "the former players undermined RR." Can you please tell me which players you are referring to and what specifically they did?

Brayon's "Lloyd Carr's Michigan Wolverines" wasn't my favorite comment, but it can also be viewed as simply paying homage to his former close who recently retired.

Other than that comment, I am not aware of players saying anything the was offensive to RR. Honest criticism (i.e. Desmond saying that Michigan needs to get back to playing Michigan defense) is just that - honest criticism.

It's not like former players were coming back to the program and suggesting to the players that they should transfer away from Rodriguez. (insert shot at Lloyd Carr here)

But not supporting the program while Rodriguez was here and showing a lot more support for the program while Hoke is here shows that Rodriguez had a more difficult time succeeding at Michigan than Hoke has now.

Brayon's [sic] "Lloyd Carr's Michigan Wolverines" wasn't my favorite comment, but it can also be viewed as simply paying homage to his former close who recently retired.

It could, if you are as gullible as Braylon would like you to be, or if you are as stupid as Braylon is.

There's no mistaking Braylon's intent. And there's no mistaking the fact that it was one of many stupid and disloyal comments that Braylon made about Rodriguez. It is also just one more item in a rather long line of shit-stupid things Braylon has done in his life off the football field.

populated with such real Michigan fans. I totally fail in this regard as I only have 3 degrees from the school and think there are more important things (like integity, the University and its acedemic programs, etc.) than winning football games.

Oh, and Bo had a losing record against Earl Bruce. I guess by your logic, clearly Bruce emphasized the game more than Bo. But Bo did have an astounding record agains Indiana, so he must have really been emphasizing that one.

This emphasizing the game stuff is so fucking stupid and orginates with Tressel. Under Tressel, OSU won because they had a better game plan and better players. Carr didn't stop emphasizing the game after Cooper was fired, He out-coached Cooper and was out-coached by Tressel.

This is akin to if Tressel had said that OSU had to have more emphasis on team circle-jerks before "the game" people would be attributing his success and our failures on our not emphasizing pre-game team circle-jerks enough.

I think Hoke uses the countdown clocks and the other stuff not to emphasize the game, but rather, to give the team something to focus upon on a daily basis. The OSU game will always be there as a carrot at the end of the season. Emphasizing "The Game" is an effective way to motivate players year round. "Beat Ohio", is a singular unifying galvanizing force at Hoke's disposal for the duration of his career to get players to do more and give more on a daily basis than they otherwise might.

Why did players spend extra time in film study? To beat Ohio

Why did players do all the seven on seven drills in the summer? To beat Ohio

It does seem that he has at least adopted adapting his coaching style to fit his players. I think that made his transition here a little more difficult. His experience at Michigan will make him a better coach in Arizona, I think. Could be wrong, just my opinion.

I wasn't aware Rodriguez ever coach a juggernaut. If you think Michigan was a juggernaut before he came you better grab a dictionary because Michigan definately does not fit the the definition in any way.